Caren M. Pauler , Hermel Homburger , Andreas Lüscher , Michael Scherer-Lorenzen , Manuel K. Schneider
{"title":"Ecosystem services in mountain pastures: A complex network of site conditions, climate and management","authors":"Caren M. Pauler , Hermel Homburger , Andreas Lüscher , Michael Scherer-Lorenzen , Manuel K. Schneider","doi":"10.1016/j.agee.2024.109272","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Mountain pastures offer a multitude of ecosystem services (ES) such as fodder for ruminants, habitat for pollinators, climate change mitigation, aesthetic landscape for recreation, and biodiversity conservation. We aimed at analysing to which extend these ES are influenced by small-scale gradients of climate, site conditions and management – and to disentangle relationships among ES and the factors influencing them. Therefore, we quantified ES on six mountain summer farms in two contrasting regions in Switzerland: the Northern Alpine Foothills (lower elevation, higher precipitation, calcareous bedrock) and the Eastern Central Alps (higher elevation, lower precipitation, silicious bedrock). We measured six ES indicators (forage quantity, forage quality, carbon storage, colour abundance, resources for pollinators, plant diversity) and related them to explanatory factors of climate (temperature and precipitation), site conditions (soil fertility, soil acidity, terrain slope) and management (local grazing intensity, remoteness) in 66 study plots, i.e., 11 per farm. A holistic picture of the complex relationships among these factors was drawn by various statistical approaches: allometric line fitting, variance partitioning, and structural equations modelling. We found a huge heterogeneity of ES indicators and explanatory factors on each farm: the variability within farms was even higher than between regions. Variance partitioning and structural equations modelling demonstrated strongest influence of climate and site conditions and revealed trade-offs among ES indicators: High forage quantity and quality were associated with low plant diversity and grassland aesthetics, whereas diversity, aesthetics and pollinator resources were positively correlated with each other. ES indicators were explained by a range of climatic and topographic factors: High precipitation reduced plant diversity, whereas temperature increased forage quantity and quality; slope reduced soil fertility, forage quantity, forage quality and carbon storage; soil fertility in turn increased forage quantity; the farther away a pasture was from the main farm building, the lower was the forage quantity and the higher the plant diversity. Although allometric <em>relations</em> among local grazing intensity and ES indicators were strong, the <em>direct</em> influence of the management factors measured on ES was surprisingly small: Cattle preferred areas of high forage quantity and quality, and carbon storage was higher in these areas. On the other hand, places less visited by cattle offered more pollinator resources, and showed higher aesthetics and plant diversity. Trade-offs among ES prevent the realisation of all ES at the same place, but heterogeneity of mountain pastures allows to realise a broad bundle of contrasting ES on each individual summer farm.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7512,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment","volume":"377 ","pages":"Article 109272"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880924003906/pdfft?md5=89083b08a78ecbcdd3d12be849a62c26&pid=1-s2.0-S0167880924003906-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880924003906","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Mountain pastures offer a multitude of ecosystem services (ES) such as fodder for ruminants, habitat for pollinators, climate change mitigation, aesthetic landscape for recreation, and biodiversity conservation. We aimed at analysing to which extend these ES are influenced by small-scale gradients of climate, site conditions and management – and to disentangle relationships among ES and the factors influencing them. Therefore, we quantified ES on six mountain summer farms in two contrasting regions in Switzerland: the Northern Alpine Foothills (lower elevation, higher precipitation, calcareous bedrock) and the Eastern Central Alps (higher elevation, lower precipitation, silicious bedrock). We measured six ES indicators (forage quantity, forage quality, carbon storage, colour abundance, resources for pollinators, plant diversity) and related them to explanatory factors of climate (temperature and precipitation), site conditions (soil fertility, soil acidity, terrain slope) and management (local grazing intensity, remoteness) in 66 study plots, i.e., 11 per farm. A holistic picture of the complex relationships among these factors was drawn by various statistical approaches: allometric line fitting, variance partitioning, and structural equations modelling. We found a huge heterogeneity of ES indicators and explanatory factors on each farm: the variability within farms was even higher than between regions. Variance partitioning and structural equations modelling demonstrated strongest influence of climate and site conditions and revealed trade-offs among ES indicators: High forage quantity and quality were associated with low plant diversity and grassland aesthetics, whereas diversity, aesthetics and pollinator resources were positively correlated with each other. ES indicators were explained by a range of climatic and topographic factors: High precipitation reduced plant diversity, whereas temperature increased forage quantity and quality; slope reduced soil fertility, forage quantity, forage quality and carbon storage; soil fertility in turn increased forage quantity; the farther away a pasture was from the main farm building, the lower was the forage quantity and the higher the plant diversity. Although allometric relations among local grazing intensity and ES indicators were strong, the direct influence of the management factors measured on ES was surprisingly small: Cattle preferred areas of high forage quantity and quality, and carbon storage was higher in these areas. On the other hand, places less visited by cattle offered more pollinator resources, and showed higher aesthetics and plant diversity. Trade-offs among ES prevent the realisation of all ES at the same place, but heterogeneity of mountain pastures allows to realise a broad bundle of contrasting ES on each individual summer farm.
山地牧场提供多种生态系统服务(ES),如反刍动物的饲料、传粉昆虫的栖息地、减缓气候变化、美化休闲景观和保护生物多样性。我们的目标是分析这些生态系统服务在多大程度上受到气候、场地条件和管理等小规模梯度的影响,并厘清生态系统服务与影响因素之间的关系。因此,我们对瑞士两个截然不同地区的六个山区夏季农场进行了ES量化:北阿尔卑斯山麓(海拔较低、降水较多、石灰质基岩)和东中阿尔卑斯山(海拔较高、降水较少、硅质基岩)。我们测量了 66 个研究地块(即每个农场 11 个)的六项 ES 指标(牧草数量、牧草质量、碳储量、颜色丰度、传粉昆虫资源、植物多样性),并将它们与气候(温度和降水)、场地条件(土壤肥力、土壤酸度、地形坡度)和管理(当地放牧强度、偏远程度)等解释性因素联系起来。通过各种统计方法:异方差线拟合、方差分区和结构方程建模,对这些因素之间的复杂关系进行了整体描绘。我们发现,每个农场的 ES 指标和解释因子都存在巨大的异质性:农场内部的变异性甚至高于地区之间的变异性。方差分区和结构方程模型显示了气候和场地条件的最大影响,并揭示了ES指标之间的权衡:牧草数量和质量高与植物多样性和草地美观度低相关,而多样性、美观度和授粉者资源则相互正相关。一系列气候和地形因素可解释 ES 指标:高降水量降低了植物多样性,而温度则提高了牧草数量和质量;坡度降低了土壤肥力、牧草数量、牧草质量和碳储存;土壤肥力反过来又提高了牧草数量;牧场距离农场主建筑越远,牧草数量越少,植物多样性越高。尽管当地放牧强度与环境负荷指标之间存在着很强的异速关系,但所测量的管理因素对环境负荷的直接影响却出乎意料地小:牛更喜欢饲草数量多、质量高的地区,这些地区的碳储量也更高。另一方面,牛群较少光顾的地方能提供更多的授粉者资源,也更美观,植物多样性更高。生态系统服务之间的权衡阻碍了在同一地点实现所有生态系统服务,但山区牧场的异质性使得每个夏季农场都能实现一系列不同的生态系统服务。
期刊介绍:
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment publishes scientific articles dealing with the interface between agroecosystems and the natural environment, specifically how agriculture influences the environment and how changes in that environment impact agroecosystems. Preference is given to papers from experimental and observational research at the field, system or landscape level, from studies that enhance our understanding of processes using data-based biophysical modelling, and papers that bridge scientific disciplines and integrate knowledge. All papers should be placed in an international or wide comparative context.